Policies and Strategic Incentives for Circular Economy and Industrial Symbiosis in Portugal: A Future Perspective

Abstract

During the last two decades, Portugal has made efforts to implement a circular economy and its business models in industries, which has led to a series of operational and strategic initiatives. Nevertheless, after 20 years, further efforts are required for a larger-scale implementation of such models. This study aims to identify the current status in the legislative context of the industrial circular economy and industrial symbiosis (ICE&IS) in Portugal, with a special focus on the policies and incentives for the promotion of this model. The main objective of this research is to verify whether there are conditions for the promotion of ICE&IS, and the main aspects to reinforce the current Portuguese strategy. To achieve this objective, a mixed research approach was defined and performed. This approach is based on methods of gathering information and analyzing the results through a comparative policy analysis. The result of this study shows that Portugal still has a considerable number of gaps and needs (strategic, fiscal, and financial) that must be addressed for effective implementation. Our research suggests that Portugal will face a series of critical aspects for industrial CE implementation, namely, promoting effective incentives (i), simplifying the national strategy (ii), and dealing with bureaucracy (iii).

1. Introduction

Circular economy (CE) is a concept of production and consumption, which promotes diverse approaches such as sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing, and recycling materials and products to extend their life cycle [1]. Among its various enabling business models, industrial symbiosis (IS), which is the application of a CE in an industrial environment or industrial ecosystem, can be highlighted. In this model the surplus materials (such as wastes and by-products) of an industry or industrial process are redirected to other industrial processes, becoming the raw materials. One of the most completed and accepted definitions of this concept establishes IS as the use by one company or sector of the broadly defined, underutilized resources (waste, by-products, residues, energy, water, logistics, capacity, expertise, equipment, and materials) from another, with the result of keeping resources in productive use for longer [2].

In this sense, a circular economy and its business models represent an opportunity to strengthen the EU’s industrial base and foster business creation [3]. The transition to such an economy is the goal of the European Commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan as it will increase Europe’s economic competitiveness, sustainability, resource efficiency and resource security, while contributing to the reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions (GHG) and their impacts on the environment [3]. Nevertheless, moving from a linear economy to a circular economy is a long and uphill journey that requires the effort of the entire society; therefore, all the stakeholders such as governments, business sectors, and consumers should contribute to making the transition possible.

In Portugal, an action plan for a circular economy was established in 2017 with the main objective of redefining the concept of the end of life and promoting the concepts of reuse, repair, and renewal of materials and energy [4]. Nevertheless, as some statistics show, Portugal still has a long way to go to achieve circularity. One of the most relevant statistics in this regard is the circularity rate; according to Eurostat, among the member states of the European Union, Portugal has one of the lowest circularity rates of 2.8% [5], which is only better than Romania (1%) [6]. For Portugal, this rate has continued to fluctuate between 1.8 and 2.5% since 2010 [5]. Another relevant indicator is the resource productivity, which represents the measure of the total amount of materials directly used by an economy in relation to GDP [7]. The Portuguese resource productivity is 1.3 (€/kg), which is lower than the European average (2.2 €/kg), although in 2020 the circularity rate and resource productivity increased.

It is thus clear that despite 20 years of efforts to implement circularity in Portugal, there still seem to be no favorable conditions to promote this model in the Portuguese economy, especially in industrial sectors. In this sense, there is an apparent contradiction between the operational implementation of a circular economy (specifically in the industrial context) and the political conditions for the implementation of this model. The Portuguese industrial sector has suggested that part of this problem is associated with restrictive barriers to the implementation of circularity strategies, oversight of legislation and regulatory framework, and economic and financial barriers [8].

There is an extensive scientific basis that has shown that policies and incentives play a critical role in the implementation of a CE and its models [9,10]. Nevertheless, some authors suggest that the effects of policy on industrial CE implementation are not completely clear, especially regarding the actual mechanisms of policy intervention and facilitation instruments for the promotion of IS [11].

This work has as its main objective to analyze this apparent contradiction and characterize the industrial circular economy and industrial symbiosis (ICE&IS) policy context in Portugal, and intends to unveil the gaps and needs that are required to be addressed in order to promote a circular economy. For this, the paper presents a new approach to understanding the current state of policies for ICE&IS in Portugal based on policy analysis and the identification of gaps and needs. In this sense, the authors consider that the perspective presented in this paper might serve as a source of information for the revision of Portugal’s circular-economy-implementation strategy, aiming to complement the strategy and support achieving the initially outlined objectives.

To achieve the objective of this research, three research questions that lead this work have been defined: (i) What is the current state of the policies and strategic incentives for ICE&IS implementation in Portugal? (ii) What are the gaps and needs regarding ICE&IS implementation in the Portuguese economy? (iii) What are the aspects in which Portugal must improve to achieve a large-scale implementation of ICE&IS?

This work is structured as follows: Section 1 is an introductory section discussing the scope and motivations of the paper. Section 2 describes the methodology adopted in this study. Section 3 typifies the current Portuguese status regarding ICE&IS. Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 present the comparative Portuguese policy analysis, identification of gaps and needs, and future perspectives of the Portuguese economy, respectively. A critical discussion is carried out in Section 7. The conclusions are drawn in the last section.

2. Research Methodology

To accomplish the paper’s objective, a sequential research methodology was implemented. Figure 1 presents the overall strategic approach for the research. The first stage of this study was based on gathering information that contemplates two steps: an overview of European ICE&IS approaches and strategies, and the current Portuguese ICE&IS status (policies and strategic incentives for ICE&IS).

The overview of ICE&IS European approaches and strategies was performed to identify the relevant references and current work developed within the scope of ICE&IS implementation, having a special focus on scientific publications (peer-reviewed papers). For this, a search was performed in the databases of Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science, with the main keywords “Industrial Symbiosis” and “Circular economy” combined with a set of other keywords (policy, regulation, incentives, and strategy). For the purposes of this search, the considered references must have been published in the last 13 years.

As a result of this first search, a total of 89 references (peer-reviewed papers) were identified. Ultimately, critical-reading and content analyses were performed, and the authors identified a set of key publications (final sample of 13 references; see Section 3.1). The selection of these references was based on the following criteria: industrial application (i), multisectoral policy perspectives (ii), and national and European perspectives (iii).

For the second step, the current Portuguese ICE&IS status, policies, and strategic incentives were identified and characterized. The search was structured through “search criteria” and an internet search. For the selection of the policies/incentives, the search was performed through a search of desktop and Portuguese national databases such as the “Diário da Republica Eletrónico” [12]. For this exercise, three criteria were identified for the policies/strategy incentives to meet in order to be considered. First, the considered instruments must be enforced. Second, they should be framed in the typology of policy instruments (for instance policies, plans, and roadmaps) or strategy incentives (for instance financial funds, taxes, among others). Lastly, those instruments should have a contribution to the implementation of a CE in Portugal (especially from an industrial application perspective); for this, they should be framed in the current strategy and be aligned with the objectives of Portugal for a CE.

This study mostly focused on the comparative policy analysis, aiming to unveil gaps and needs in the Portuguese context. This analysis was inspired by two previous works [13,14]. The work proposed by Carl V. Patton [13] sets a general methodology that includes several steps for policy analysis: Verify, define, and detail the problem (i); Establish evaluation criteria (ii); Identify and evaluate the possible alternatives (iii).

The other inspiration was the work proposed within the SYMBI project (this European project contributes to improving the implementation of regional development policies and programs related to the promotion and dissemination of industrial symbiosis and a circular economy) [15]. In this work, the authors propose a comparative policy analysis for IS for several countries in the EU, namely Italy, Greece, Hungary, Slovenia, and Poland [14].

The applied analysis was structured in three sequential steps. The first step was the identification of policy/incentive distribution, the second step focused on the data analysis, and the third step defined the group of aspects to reinforce. It should be noted that the comparative analysis was mostly based on a mixed approach that was supported by a literature review and expert insights. Figure 2 illustrates the comparative-policy-analysis approach.

After policy identification (current status) in the first step of the analysis, the instruments were allocated in a grid. This grid was composed of two groups: (i) the product-value-chain phases and (ii) the fundamental dimension of the key factors for industrial symbiosis.

These dimensions were inspired by the work by Henriques et al. [16] that presented six fundamental dimensions of the key factors in the emerging process of industrial symbiosis which, for the comparative analysis, were converted into six clusters. The criterion to transform them was based on thematic affinity. In this cluster organization, knowledge (i) represents the set of actions dedicated to transferring knowledge to reinforce the stakeholder’s profile. Data management (ii) represents the accessibility of data and platforms. Social issues (iii) are associated with preventing barriers to social issues such as a lack of trust and social inertia. Brokers (iv) refer to the availability of intermediaries and mobilizing elements in the emerging process of the IS. Technical capability (v) is associated with the internal (capacity) and external (availability) perspective of the technology to develop synergies, and finally, investment and funding (vi) are associated with the availability of the financing and investment necessary to develop synergies, either through public or private channels.

The second step consisted of the data analysis, which was based on two perspectives: individual and general. The individual level was focused on the identification of the contribution of each incentive/policy for the CE implementation and its weaknesses. For this, a detailed critical-reading analysis of each policy was performed. On a general level, the results obtained in the previous step (grid analysis) were analyzed. Once the results of the analysis at the individual and the general level were identified, the main gaps and needs were identified. Each gap was identified through the previous results and resulted in a specific need, which attempted to provide an answer to that gap.

Lastly, the future perspective was defined. The future perspective consisted of a group of aspects to reinforce the current strategy for a CE. This section does not intend to define a new strategy, but rather to identify the key points that might contribute to achieving the objectives outlined in the current strategy, based on the results of the two previous steps.

3. Review of ICE&IS Policies and Strategic Incentives

For the purpose of this research, two concepts were defined that limit the boundaries of our scope. Please note that these definitions are based on previous work in this area.

Table 1. Policies and strategic incentives for ICE&IS definitions.

Policies for ICE&IS	Refs.	Strategic Incentives for ICE& IS	Refs.
Policies for ICE&IS are defined as the set of guidelines and regulations that a certain country promotes to increase the implementation of those circular models in its national context.	[17,18]	The incentives are instruments or mechanisms supporting the implementation of ICE&IS. They are normally promoted by the states, ministries or agencies, and are framed in the strategic vision for the implementation of ICE&IS	[9,10,19,20]

presents those definitions.

3.1. Overview on European ICE&IS Approaches and Strategies

Concern about climate change and the scarcity of raw materials [21,22] have motivated many countries to promote policy frameworks and strategies to support their industries in the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy [3,23,24,25,26]. This has been particularly relevant in countries and regions with strong industrial activities such as the European Union [3,23,24], China [27], and the United Kingdom [23,25]. For this reason, the academic community has made efforts to characterize and analyze those policy frameworks [18,24,28,29,30,31,32]. Among those references, it should be highlighted that most of the articles are divided into policy analysis for a circular economy and for industrial symbiosis.

Concerning circular-economy policies, Friant et al. [29] promoted one of the most relevant and recent contributions to this topic. In this paper, a qualitative and quantitative study was designed and performed, which first critically analyzed the EU’s discourse based on a typology of circularity discourses. It also reviewed and compared the complex set of concrete CE policies and actions adopted by the EU. One of the principal highlights of this study is the set of actions recommended to tackle the systemic challenges of a circular future from a plural perspective. In a different approach, Kirchherr et al. [30] presented a comprehensive study in which the barriers to a circular economy were identified, with a special focus on the evidence from the European Union. Among the barriers to a circular economy, the authors developed a framework where it was suggested that regulatory barriers have an important role, especially regarding limited circular procurement, obstructing law and policies, and the lack of global consensus.

Domenech et al. [31] presented a comprehensive overview of the current policy frameworks in the EU, selecting member states and providing insights into the elements shaping policy processes. The analysis revealed that policy frameworks for RE/CE are complex and fragmented as competing goals and visions reduce the effectiveness of measures. As a final contribution, the authors suggested a set of recommendations on how EU and member states’ policies could improve RE in a coordinated means, but recognized that achieving such coordination will be challenging in the current political context. McDowall et al. [27] presented an analysis of the similarities and differences in the approach to circular-economy policies in China and Europe. The authors presented evidence on the different interpretations of the CE concept in Chinese and European political discourse, based on qualitative and quantitative analyses (mutual learning opportunities), highlighting opportunities in critical aspects such as financing, planning, and standards.

Lastly, Mark Anthony et al. [32] presented an integrated perspective on how environmental policies in the EU approach to a CE (namely WEEE, batteries, nutrients, textiles, etc.) by evaluating the latest European environmental policies including its new circular-economy plans for a cleaner and more competitive Europe. The findings suggested that there are several opportunities as well as challenges for the successful planning, organization, implementation, and measurement of circular-economy practices for sustainable supply chains in Europe. This contribution identified key implications and provided reasonable recommendations to policymakers and industry practitioners.

Regarding industrial-symbiosis policies, one of the most relevant contributions was promoted by Boons et al. [24], which compared IS in various EU countries (France, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, and Spain), identifying how industrial symbiosis emerges in the national context. To achieve this goal, the authors analyzed the countries’ conditions (IS approach and available policies) using empirical data analysis. Among the contributions of this study, a framework of insights was identified between this group of countries, as well as how the characteristics of industrial symbiosis differ by country. In a similar approach, Petríková et al. [33] presented a work that aimed to explain the cooperation and processes realized within the industrial networks based on the principles of industrial symbiosis in Denmark, Russia, and Slovakia.

From a different perspective, Wang et al. [34] addressed the concept of policy efficacy. This work explored the efficacy of policy on IS implementation from the perspective of enterprise operation by comparing two approaches (subsidy and penalty). The authors designed and proposed a framework for policy influence, and the results showed that both policies have positive effects in all situations. However, the efficacy of policy is influenced by the relationship between waste supply and demand [34].

Jiao et al. [11], in their study, proposed a research agenda to clarify the mechanisms of policy intervention and facilitation of industrial symbiosis based on a comprehensive review of the industrial-symbiosis literature, focusing on how policy is conceptualized and studied [11]. In the first part of this study, the authors defined four categories of policy research addressed in IS literature, presenting a strong theoretical basis for how policies work for IS (implications, impacts, approaches, etc.), all based on a literature review. The study by Lybaek et al. [35] performed an analysis of industrial-symbiosis policies to explore how the development of IS systems is influenced by policies and to examine how future policy frameworks can be designed to best support the development of industrial-symbiosis systems. For this, the authors presented a discussion of the conditions for policies given by the EU, UN, and OECD, performing a distinctive analysis of direct and indirect policies for IS (policy analyses: top-down vs. bottom-up). Lastly, it presented a study case from Denmark, Maabjerg Energy Center (MEC), and defined a research agenda for IS policy mechanisms and the facilitation process.

In a more specific perspective applied to the Portuguese case, there are a limited number of studies that provide an overview of the current state of policies and incentives for ICE&IS in Portugal [36,37,38]. Among the contributions promoted in the Portuguese case is the study by Oliveira et al. [36] that defined the current status of the ongoing actions and the challenges for the diffusion of a circular economy in the Portuguese nation, and drew a panorama for Brazil using different data sources, economic sectors, and stakeholders. One of the main contributions of the study is an extensive analysis of the dynamics of the circular economy in Portugal through a SWOT analysis, highlighting the integration of stakeholders aiming to strengthen new work fronts, as well as the necessity of promoting partnerships with different countries that are focused on research, innovation, and the exchange of knowledge. Another important contribution in this regard was promoted by Ferrão et al. [37], who explored how industrial-ecology concepts and tools were used to support the design of waste-management systems and policies in Portugal. It was based on a set of case studies that illustrate the results of successful cooperation between government, private institutions, and academia to transform waste into a useful resource for socio-economic development. One of the main contributions of the paper is the characterization of the impacts (Environmental and Economic Impact Assessment) of the Portuguese National Plan for Municipal Solid Waste 2014–2020. Lastly is the contribution proposed by Neves et al. [38], in which the authors mapped and analyzed the existing cases of industrial symbiosis in Portugal, defining a potential industrial-symbiosis network, a briefing on Portuguese legislative context related to industrial symbiosis, and a set of main challenges and prospects in the Portuguese context. The authors considered that, although there are a number of actions that represent an important step towards increasing IS relations, most of those actions are quite qualitative, without quantitative targets or the respective deadlines for achieving them [38]. They also highlighted the lack of indicators regarding IS implementation.

Despite the relevant contributions that have been made on this topic, none of those studies directly approached the current stance of Portugal concerning ICE&IS implementation. Most of those studies examined the current status of the policies on this issue from a transversal perspective (studies dedicated to several countries or the Eurozone). In the few contributions that were applied to the Portuguese case, it was not identified how Portugal is positioned on this matter, if there are gaps or needs in the current strategy, or what could be improved in the current strategy for the implementation of this model in Portugal.

3.2. Current Portuguese ICE&IS Status, Policies and Strategic Incentives

This section presents the current status of policies and strategic incentives for ICE&IS in Portugal.

Once the policies/incentives that meet the criteria were identified, a separation of the scope of action (macro, meso, and micro) was undertaken. In this sense, the macro represents the broadest level of policies and incentives, such as traversal initiatives that are applied to the whole country (for instance, national plans and national policy frameworks). The meso scale identifies actions that have an impact in a regional or sectoral perspective (for instance, regional agendas for the implementation of a CE). Lastly, the micro level is directed at policies or incentives that address actions for the local or specific context of implementation (for instance, a voucher for CE implementation in a company). Currently, in Portugal, there are 15 policies/incentives that have a direct contribution to the circular-economy implementation in industry. From those policies, there are four macro, five meso, and six micro. In the following section, those policies/incentives are presented. Table 1 organizes the Portuguese policies/incentives and the identification of their main contribution to the circular economy in an industrial context. Figure 3 represents the policies distributed by perspective (macro, meso, and micro).

Table 2. Current policies and instruments promoted in Portugal for ICE&IS.

	Instrument	Typology	Year	Contribution for ICE&IS	Ref.
Macro	National Program for the Territorial Planning Policy (PNPOT)	Policy	2020	Mapping of flows of materials, goods, and products, for the promotion of agglomeration economies and industrial symbioses	[39]
	National Energy and Climate Plan 2030 (PNEC 2030)	Policy	2020	Defines a line of action that aims to promote the circular economy in industry, develop new products and business models, reduce energy and material consumption, and contribute to the fight against climate change	[40]
	Roadmap for Carbon Neutrality 2050	Policy	2019	Establishes circular-economy strategies, particularly by following the guidelines set forth in the Circular Economy Action Plan	[41]
	Action Plan for the Circular Economy in Portugal (PAEC)	Policy	2017	Establishes a strategic perspective to implement CE in Portugal	[4]
	PERSU 2020 and PERSU 2030	Policy	2017	Establishes a strategy for the management of urban waste in Portugal, addressing the potential for prevention and recovery of waste	[42,43]
	National Waste Management Plan for the 2014–2020 (PNGR)	Policy	2014	Promotes the prevention and management of waste integrated into the life cycle of products, centered on a circular economy and ensuring greater efficiency in the use of natural resources	[44]
Meso	Innovation agendas PRR	Policy	2020	Agendas promote the circular economy and leverage the development of new solutions, which make it possible to specifically respond to the challenge of climate change, towards energy transition and carbon neutrality	[45]
	Regional agendas for a Circular Economy (CCDRs)	Policy	2019	Defines the transition and acceleration strategies for the circular economy that are best suited to the socio-economic profile of each of the regions concerned	[46,47,48,49]
	Research and Innovation (R&I) Agenda for the Circular Economy	Policy	2019	This agenda promotes a strategic perspective with the main lines of actions and priorities for the sector of research and innovation (R&I) in Portugal	[50]
	National Environmental Education Strategy (ENEA)	Incentive	2017	Promotes initiatives for greater and better environmental awareness among the population (society and business). Among its thematic areas, ENEA establishes the circular economy as a priority area	[51,52]
	Mechanism for the extended responsibility of the producer	Incentive	2017	Promotes an approach to waste management that takes into account the life cycle of products and materials and not just the end-of-life phase, with inherent advantages in terms of the efficient use of resources, energy, and environmental impact	[53]
Micro	Portugal 2020/Portugal 2030	Policy	2021	Strategic perspective to finance initiatives that monitor the climate emergency and incorporate the targets of decarbonization by supporting innovation and the circular economy, benefiting sustainable production methods	[54]
	Collaborative Laboratories (CoLab)	Incentive	2019	Promotion of collaborative laboratories that qualified employment and scientific employment in Portugal through the implementation of research and innovation agendas aimed at creating economic and social value	[55,56]
	FITEC/INTERFACE	Incentive	2019	Promotes and finances initiatives within the scope of innovation, technology, and a circular economy	[57]
	Vales Economia Circular (Circular Economy Voucher)	Incentive	2017	These vouchers provide an instrument for companies in the preparation of a diagnosis that will lead to the implementation of CE business models	[58]
	Environmental Fund (FA)	Incentive	2016	Promotes and finances several initiatives regarding environmental policies, sustainable development goals, and a circular economy	[59]
	SIFIDE	Incentive	2014	Promotes tax instruments to increase the competitiveness of companies by supporting their efforts in research and development areas such as the circular economy and eco-design	[60]

presents the current policies and instruments promoted in Portugal for ICE&IS.

Before introducing Portugal’s strategic incentives and policies for ICE&IS, it is important to note that there are a set of factors that have led to the promotion of these instruments. According to the PAEC [4], among the main factors that have triggered this strategy are the current metabolism of the Portuguese economy and some indicators of national productivity. Regarding the productivity indicators, Portugal has a high production of waste by the Portuguese industry (approximately 27% of the total waste) [61], a low rate of product resource productivity (1.3 €/kg) [7], and a low circularity rate (2.8%) [5]. In this sense, Portugal’s economy has a slow metabolism. It extracts and imports more raw materials than the number of finished goods it exports, accumulating stock in materials [4].

Please note that since the scope of this study was mainly limited to the industrial circular economy and industrial symbiosis (ICE&IS), the waste considered for the purposes of this research was limited to waste from industrial processes as specified by the Portuguese law DL n.º 178/2006 [62]. Other flows such as urban or medical waste were not considered.

3.2.1. Macro Level

At the macro level, various policies have been promoted in the Portuguese context. At this level, those policies mainly respond to three areas or interests: promotion of a circular economy (i), waste management (ii), and energy efficiency and carbon neutrality (iii).

The most important political instrument regarding the circular-economy promotion in Portugal is the Plan of Action for the Circular Economy (PAEC) [4]. Promoted in 2017, the PAEC has the main objective of redefining the concept of the end of life of the linear economy by limiting the production and elimination of waste while encouraging the concepts of reuse, repair, and renewal of materials and energy [4]. In the initial phase, the plan acts on the most pressing barriers in the following areas: political (political instruments that promote the efficient use of resources throughout the value chain); knowledge (disseminating information on best practices, case studies, funding opportunities, among others, and promoting the development of collaborative R&D initiatives in this area); economic (through specific interventions in financial instruments, namely through sectoral and intersectoral projects in this matter) [4]. Regarding the operational structure, the PAEC presents three levels of actions to be introduced and operated in the first period (2017–2020): the actions of a transversal and national nature, which consolidate some of the actions of various government areas for this transition (for instance, green taxation, voluntary agreements, Portugal 2020 environmental network) (i); sectoral agendas (ii), especially for sectors that are more resource-intensive and export-oriented (such as the textile, footwear, and manufacturing sectors); lastly, the regional agendas (iii), which must be adapted to the socio-economic specificities of each region (for instance industrial symbiosis networks, circular cities, and circular companies). The measures to be considered within the scope of the government’s performance were consolidated in the PAEC, which presents seven actions aligned with the European pillars of action for the circular economy, and three levels of operationalization [4].

Regarding waste management, four important policies have been promoted in this regard: the National Waste Management Plan (PNGR), PERSU 2020, PNPOT, PERSU 2020+, and PERSU 2030.

The National Waste Management Plan (for the period 2014–2020) aims to promote the prevention and management of waste integrated into the life cycle of products, centered on a circular economy and ensuring greater efficiency in the use of natural resources, and is based on two strategic objectives: promoting the efficient use of natural resources in the economy and preventing or reducing adverse impacts arising from the production and management of waste [44].

The Strategic Plan for Urban Waste (PERSU 2020) defines the urban waste-management strategy and an action plan in mainland Portugal for the period 2014–2020. This plan aimed to make each urban waste-management system accountable, ensuring a proportional distribution of efforts to meet national targets, considering the investments already made and the specificities of each one. In general terms, the program defined three targets per system: a target for preparing for reuse and recycling (%); a target for deposition of biodegradable urban waste in landfills (%); a target for selective collection returns (Kg per capita per year) [42]. The PERSU 2030 is the adjustment to the measures set out in the Strategic Plan for Urban Waste (PERSU 2020) to correct the current trajectory and project the effort to achieve the newly established goals. Although its final version has not yet been published because it is in the revision phase, the new PERSU will meet more ambitious goals in recycling and the diversion of landfills [43].

The National Program for the Territorial Planning Policy (PNPOT) is the most important instrument of the territorial management system in Portugal, defining objectives and strategic options for territorial development and establishing the model for organizing the national territory [39]. The PNPOT establishes the promotion of efficiency of the regional and urban metabolism through the increase in industrial symbiosis via the promotion of synergies of territorialized production and the creation of local markets. For this purpose, there is an intervention in the survey of the flows of materials, goods, and products for the promotion of agglomeration economies, industrial synergies, and territorial strategies to enhance production [39].

Lastly, in the perspective of energy efficiency and carbon neutrality, there is the Roadmap for Carbon Neutrality 2050 (RNC2050) [41] and the PNEC 2030 [40]. The RNC2050 sets the path to carbon neutrality in a sustained manner, establishes the main guidelines, and identifies cost-effective options to achieve this end in different socio-economic development scenarios. This roadmap was elaborated following the principles established in other important circular-economy strategies, particularly by following the guidelines outlined in the Circular Economy Action Plan [3], as well as the spatial planning of the country (specifically the proposal of the National Program of Spatial Planning Policies).

The National Energy and Climate Plan 2030 (PNEC 2030) is the main energy and climate policy instrument for the decade of 2021–2030 toward a carbon-neutral future. In this sense, the PNEC 2030 establishes new national targets for the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions (including sectoral targets, targets for the incorporation of energy from renewable sources, and energy efficiency). It also defines the lines of action and measures to be adopted for the decarbonization of energy, society, and the energy transition, in alignment with the Roadmap for Carbon Neutrality 2050 [41]. Concerning a CE in industry, the PNEC has a defined line of action that aims to promote a CE in industry, develop new products and business models, reduce energy and material consumption, and contribute to the fight against climate change [63].

3.2.2. Meso Level

At the meso level, there are a relevant number of policies and instruments (in total five instruments). At this level, those policies mainly respond to three areas or interests: promotion of a circular economy (i), financing (ii), and finally a change of habit in society (iii).

Concerning policies/incentives for the CE promotion at the meso level as a first instrument, there are the regional agendas for a circular economy of the CCDRs (Regional Coordination and Development Commission). Within the scope of the actions of the PAEC, the development of regional agendas is foreseen, which are developed by the CCDRs (Norte [46], Centro [47], Lisbon and Tagus Valley [48], Alentejo, and Algarve [49]), and which should define the transition and acceleration strategies for the circular economy that are best suited to the socio-economic profile of each of the regions concerned. In general, these agendas present a dynamic document that establishes a strategic perspective on the potential for circularity of the economies in the various regions of Portugal, framing physical flows within an economic and social framework, thus allowing for the perspective of a socio-economic development scenario. The agendas are different by region, but in general, they address critical areas within the scope of each region’s priorities to reinforce the CE implementation.

From a different perspective, the FCT (Foundation for Science and Technology) promoted a research and innovation (R&I) agenda for a circular economy [50]. This agenda represents a joint multi-actor vision and a strategy for Portugal to position itself in the transition to a circular economy, thereby enhancing society’s resilience, sustainability, inclusiveness, and competitiveness. For this purpose, this agenda recommends four main lines of research and innovation (vertical axes), three strategic priorities (thematic axes), and transversal axes (enablers), which support and complement R&I activities. This agenda explores the challenges and opportunities of research and innovation (R&I) in a circular economy for Portugal for the medium and long term (2030). The agenda also demonstrates the strategy for positioning Portugal at a new level of knowledge and competitiveness at the international level, in line with the sustainable-development goals [50].

Regarding circular-economy financing at the meso level, two important instruments have been promoted. First, the Portugal 2020/Portugal 2030, which materializes the Partnership Agreement to be established between Portugal and the European Commission. Setting the main strategic objectives for application, between 2021 and 2027, the programming principles that enshrine the economic, social, and territorial development policies are defined [54]. Its programming revolves around five strategic objectives of the European Union: smarter, greener, more connected, more social, and closer to its citizens. Portugal 2030 is implemented through 12 programs, among which can be highlighted some associated with CE, such as Climate Action and Sustainability, Innovation, and Digital Transition. This program establishes among its priorities: monitoring the climate emergency and incorporating the targets of decarbonization by supporting innovation and the circular economy, thereby benefiting sustainable production methods [54].

Lastly, from the perspective of changing habits, there are two important instruments: The National Environmental Education Strategy (ENEA) and the mechanism of long-term responsibility for the producer. The ENEA aims to consolidate and stimulate the skills, values, and attitudes of the population, thus enabling the creation of a more active, innovative, and environmentally cultured society. Following this idea, it is intended to promote a greater and better environmental awareness among the population, encouraging the change and acquisition of new pro-environment behaviors [51,52]. Among its thematic areas, the ENEA establishes the circular economy as a priority area, promoting actions to dematerialize consumption, design new products, and increase the value of waste [51]. The extended-producer-responsibility mechanism is an approach to waste management that takes into account the life cycle of products and materials and not just the end-of-life phase, with inherent advantages in terms of the efficient use of resources, energy, and environmental impact. In this regard, the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA) is also taking advantage of the action in terms of monitoring the performance of entities that are managing integrated systems for specific waste flows, thus promoting the principles of a circular economy.

3.2.3. Micro Level

The micro level addresses the policies, incentives, and instruments applied to a more limited scope. At this level, these policies respond mainly to two areas or interests: promotion of the circular economy and financing.

With respect to policies/incentives for the ICE&IS promotion at the micro level, the “Vale Economia Circular” (circular-economy voucher) aims to provide Portuguese companies with a diagnosis that will lead to the definition of an action plan for the implementation of management and growth models that are aligned with national and international strategies and commitments assumed by Portugal, with particular relevance for a circular economy [58]. This voucher has allowed companies and industries to improve their performance through the identification of a strategy leading to the adoption of circular-economy business plans, especially in the eco-design of processes and products, eco-efficiency, energy efficiency, and industrial synergies, among others [58].

The SIFIDE is a tax-incentive system for R&D, which aims to increase the competitiveness of companies by supporting their efforts in research and development with a tax reduction based on R&D expenses. Within the scope of the SIFIDE, during 2017–2018, a set of eco-design initiatives were supported through the implementation of more sustainable business models, namely the circular economy [60].

The Fundo Ambiental (Environmental Fund) is a financing fund with the main purpose of supporting environmental policies to pursue sustainable development goals, contributing to the fulfilment of national and international goals and commitments, in particular those relating to climate change, water resources, waste, and the conservation of nature and biodiversity [59]. Concerning the CE, this fund allowed the financing and promotion of several initiatives in the field of circular economics, mainly in the areas of a circular economy in municipal chambers [64], CE implementation in the construction sector [65], the use of plastics in the circular economy [66], the integration of the circular economy in public purchases, and certification systems for the circular economy [58], among others.

The FITEC (Fund for Innovation, Technology, and Circular Economy) [57] aims to support policies to enhance scientific and technological knowledge and its transformation into innovation in order to encourage cooperation between higher-education institutions, technological-interface centers, the industry, and capacity building, for more efficient use of resources. This program has ensured basic funding for interface centers that play a relevant role in technology transfer and capacity building of companies in their transition to a circular economy, namely contributing to the reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions and thus to climate-change mitigation [57].

As part of the Interface Program [55], the Collaborative Laboratories (CoLAB) were created. The CoLABs have the main objective of creating, directly and indirectly, qualified employment and scientific employment in Portugal through the implementation of research and innovation agendas aimed at creating economic and social value [56]. This program has allowed for the consolidation of the first collaborative laboratory for the circular economy in Portugal, CECOLAB [67], which aims to develop sustainable market solutions in a CE model for national strategic value chains, with a high repercussion effect on other value chains of the Portuguese economy and with a high international impact.

Lastly, the Organized Waste Market (MOR) is an instrument that allows the enhancement of the commercial value of wastes in Portugal, thus diminishing the demand for primary raw materials [68]. The Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament on waste establishes the guarantee that when a by-product leaves waste management, it will be further diverted to a posterior use. In this sense, the MOR assumes special relevance in this area by potentially creating the conditions for future processes of waste reclassification. In this digital market, the producers can voluntarily join the platform and trade waste, except toxic waste.

It is important to highlight that the policies and strategic incentives for ICE&IS in Portugal are not only limited to those that were presented in our analysis, particularly as this analysis focused on initiatives with an actual contribution to circular-economy implementation in industry and industrial symbiosis, as was defined in the initial criteria. Among those initiatives are the Tourism 2027 strategy [69], the Sustainable Cities Strategy 2020 [70], ENCPE 2020 [71], and ENCDA [4]. All these initiatives have a relevant contribution to the CE implementation in Portugal, though they are not representative in terms of implementation in the industry. It should also be noted that there is another group of initiatives that were not included in this analysis since they do not match the criteria of being enforced. In this second group, we specifically refer to those that have recently ended or that are currently in public consultation, therefore not being enforced. Among this group is the PERNU [72].

4. Comparative Portuguese Policy Analysis

The following section presents the comparative-policy-analysis results. Figure 4 presents the comparative policy analysis whereby the identified policies are allocated in a matrix base that relates the fundamental dimension for ICE&IS implementation and the product-value-chain phases. Here, circles with blue and continuous lines represent political instruments such as plans, strategies, and roadmaps. On the other hand, circles with a green dashed line represent strategic incentives such as financial funds, taxes, etc.

The most fundamental difference in the analysis consists of the classification in terms of either policies or strategic incentives. Regarding the policies, a total of five elements were identified, namely the RCN2050, PERSU 2030, PNGR, and the PAEC. Most of these policies have a macro level, but they act throughout a large part of the value chain of materials, having a relevant contribution to aspects such as the provision of investment, combating social barriers, training, and promotion of a CE. All the elements mentioned are aimed at improving Portugal’s position in specific matters such as waste management or carbon neutrality, as well as having a significant contribution to the CE. Nevertheless, none directly tackles the CE implementation in the industry, except for PAEC. Regarding the strategic incentives, a total of nine elements were identified. In the same means as in policies, the incentives are mainly focused on the final phases of the product-value chain; however, the incentives cover a greater number of fundamental dimensions, namely social, investment, knowledge, and technology. In this sense, incentives have a better contribution distribution than policies.

Moving on to a more detailed analysis of the fundamental phases, with regard to investment and funding in Portugal, there are various types of instruments for CE financing, most of which work through programs such as the Environmental Fund [59] and P2020/2030 [54]. From a more practical perspective, there are instruments such as CE vouchers [58] for investment in implementation. Concerning taxation, Portugal has a fiscal instrument that provides tax reduction based on the amount of investment in R&D activities, which is the SIFIDE [57].

The group that concentrates the largest number of initiatives is related to the area of knowledge and brokers. Most of these initiatives are political and have a top-down perspective such as the PAEC [4], PNPOT [39], and PNC 2050 [41]. Those are distributed between the middle and final stages of the value chain of materials, and this distribution is mainly due to the diversity of issues addressed by these initiatives (circular-economy transition, carbon-neutrality pathways, territorial-planning policy, and waste management, among others) as was referred to in the current status analysis. Nevertheless, there are also strategic incentives that are more focused on specific areas such as the promotion of education, as is the case with the ENEA [51,52].

Finally, regarding the technical capability and data, Portugal has a fairly limited number of incentives in this regard. From the perspective of supporting scientific and technological knowledge and its transformation into innovation, the FITEC is positioned as the only relevant incentive in this area [57]. Regarding the data and digitalization perspective, at this moment Portugal does not have centralized and public waste databases, nor does it have platforms to support and promote circular synergies in the industry. The only relevant incentive in this area is the MOR [68]. Finally, from a more strategic and technical-capability perspective, the PNEC [40,63] addresses the establishment of new industrial areas developed in industrial symbiosis, with material and energy rationalization plans and the rehabilitation of existing industrial areas.

5. Gaps and Needs for ICE&IS Implementation in Portugal

This section presents the gaps and needs for ICE&IS in the Portuguese case. These results are based on expert consultation and the identification of gaps and needs.

5.1. Expert Consultation

For the expert consultation, the information-gathering process was performed through interviews with experts. The main objective was to identify relevant points in the matter of the circular economy, especially regarding the current status of Portuguese industry ICE&IS implementation (i); the existence of gaps and needs in the current strategy (ii); and the possible alternatives to achieve circularity in the Portuguese context (iii).

For this objective, a focus group of seven experts in various subjects related to industrial circular economy and industrial symbiosis (industrial ecology, waste management, environmental engineering, legislation, etc.) was identified and addressed. The experts were chosen in order to cover fundamental aspects of the implementation of ICE&IS, namely legal and regulatory aspects, operational implementation, and waste management.

For this reason, the focus group was composed of experts that had various occupations such as process engineers, waste-management-law experts, environmental consultants, and waste-management managers. The final result of this information-gathering method was a set of specific insights regarding the three points mentioned above, which helped refine and complemented the results of the literature review and the final results of this study.

5.2. Identification of Gaps and Needs

The identification of gaps and needs was based on the current status, the results of comparative policy analysis, and expert insights. The outcome of this exercise is presented in

Table 3. Identification of gaps and needs.

Domain	Gap	Need
Economic	Lack of diversity in financing methods	Promotion of instruments that deal with funding and investment
Fiscal	Low development in fiscal policy or incentive	Promotion of effective instruments such as tax and subsidy incentives to overcome barriers for ICE&IS
Process	Waste Management barriers to secondary materials and by-products High level of bureaucracy, complexity, and costs in obtaining permits necessary for ICE&IS implementation	Simplification of the declassification of waste to by-products Simplify and accelerate the acquisition of industrial licenses and other permits required for synergies
Social	Lack of a coordinated approach across ICE&IS facilitating entities, stakeholders, and networks	Promotion of common spaces for stakeholders, for example, hubs for circularity
Strategic	High concentration of policies and incentives at the middle and final phases of the production cycle	Promotion of incentives and policies for raw materials
	Lack of clear and strong targets to achieve regarding CE implementation in the industry	Promotion of quantifiable KPI, and complement with a monetarizing process
	Absence of an action plan or a strategic framework for ICE&IS (dedicated)	Plan or strategic perspective directed to CE in industry, with a clear pathway to follow and a target adequate for the Portuguese economy reality
	Lack of objectives and targets for CE in the industry	Promotion of a clear approach to address ICE&IS in Portugal (e.g., sectoral approaches)
Technical	Uncertainty due to lack of data, information, and standards that relate to ICE&IS	Promotion of digital material passports, databases, and marketplaces. Should also promote instruments to address standards, for instance, circular certification

. The gaps and needs are categorized by their main domain and a brief description.

The largest gaps and needs were identified from a strategic perspective, and four major gaps were identified, namely: those related to macro aspects such as the high concentration of policies and incentives at the middle and final phases of the production cycle (i), a lack of clear and strong targets to achieve regarding CE implementation in the industry (ii), a lack objectives for CE in the industry (iii), and the absence of a framework or action plans exclusively dedicated to the implementation of a CE and its models in the industry (iv).

In the social domain, the main gap refers to the lack of a coordinated approach across ICE&IS, specifically referring to the problems associated with the lack of engagement and brokers for the development of synergies. This generates the need to create common spaces for stakeholders interested in circular-economy implementation. In this regard, an example of good practices is the hubs of circularity. In the fiscal aspect, the biggest gap is the low development of fiscal policy or incentives for the implementation of circularity in the industry. Currently, there is only one incentive in this perspective that does not cover all the needs of this aspect. In the process domain, the major gaps consist of waste-management barriers for secondary materials and by-products, especially those associated with obtaining permits and declassifying waste, which can be an expensive and time-consuming process. In this regard, a fundamental need for the Portuguese industry is the simplification of the declassification of waste to by-products. Lastly, from a technical perspective, the biggest issue refers to the lack of data (databases, matching and mimicking platforms, and marketplaces) that have come to be essential in the development phase of industrial synergies. Currently, Portugal does not have active developments in this area. The main need in this area is the promotion of digital material passports associated with databases, which has already been discussed by the European Commission (DPP—Digital Product Passport) [73]. Another recurring need in this matter is the promotion of the instrument to address standards, for instance, circular certification [74].

6. Future Perspective for Portuguese Economy

The objective of this section is to identify which are the key aspects in which Portugal must strengthen its policies and incentives to effectively unlock the industrial circular economy and its business models. This section does not focus on the political paths to defining a new strategy for Portugal. On the contrary, this section defines which are the key points to reinforce in order to achieve the objectives outlined in the current strategy. According to our analysis, this study identified three critical aspects to advance in the domain of the CE in Portugal: effective incentives, simplifying the national strategy, and dealing with bureaucracy. Figure 5 represents the critical aspects to improve the current strategy.

6.1. Effective Incentives

As it was noted in the comparative analysis, the Portuguese circular-economy policies address a large number of areas and have an impact on almost all phases of the material-value chain. Nevertheless, according to our analysis, Portugal lacks incentives in various fundamental areas for the circular transition, namely fiscal, social, economic, and technological. In this sense, the problem seems to be in the incentives promoted in these policies and not in the political context itself, and therefore, the promotion of well-directed and effective incentives is necessary. In this sense, for greater CE implementation in the industry and to improve the current position of Portugal in this domain, it will be necessary to promote effective incentives.

Regarding fiscal incentives, there is a vast representation of cases and studies that confirm that tax incentives are essential to support circular initiatives [10,31,75,76]. In this aspect, two types of fiscal instruments are normally promoted to encourage circularity. Instruments that benefit companies through tax reduction are associated with activities that promote circulation or instruments that offer other types of tax benefits, such as the deduction of the VAT. Portugal currently has a single fiscal instrument of this type (SIFIDE) [60], which provides fiscal benefits associated with an investment in research and development activities. It is important to note that the SIFIDE approval rate in 2020 was less than 13% [77], and this is a program that is not exclusively dedicated to the circular economy, so only a limited number of applications are directed at CE implementation. In this sense, the authors considered that a single tax instrument is not sufficient, and that Portugal should adopt a more ambitious perspective on green taxation that, on the one hand, encourages good circularity practices, but also measures negative externalities of economic activities and penalizes the entities that generate the greatest impact. An example of this type of instrument is the application of higher taxes on incineration and landfill, such as the perspective applied in Norwegian CO₂ tax [78] and Finnish reduced taxation [18]. Portugal has a long way to go in this area, as it currently has one of the lowest landfill and waste disposal rates [79,80], which indicates that companies are not interested in seeking more circular solutions for their waste.

The literature indicates that social incentives are relevant elements in the promotion of synergies, especially for promoting engagement, marketing, and education. Most of Portugal’s plans dedicated to this area address social aspects from a macro perspective, with specific activities that promote engagement [4]. From a more dedicated perspective, the only incentive that works as a catalyst is the ENEA (as far as education is concerned) [51]. Fostering the involvement of stakeholders and brokers has proven to be of great importance in countries that are particularly developed in these areas [18], notably through stakeholder-monitoring mechanisms in the area of legislative changes, networking, and clustering. A promising perspective that brings together all these areas is the promotion of hubs for circularity and community practices to trigger circular-economy and industrial-symbiosis implementation [81], since through these hubs they address various social barriers such as the core needs of information sharing, spreading awareness, overcoming non-technical barriers, and motivating adoption. The European Commission has already dedicated calls and initiatives for the promotion of these hubs [82,83].

The financing to develop synergies in the industry is one of the most critical aspects due to all of the costs involved in the implementation of synergies (technicians, personnel, facilities, among others) [10], especially in cases such as Portugal, where the industry is marked by the preponderance of SMEs, which are commonly associated with a reduced R&D capacity. As we discussed in the policy analysis, Portugal has various instruments to finance circularity, namely P2030, the circular-economy voucher, and Fundo Ambiental, among others [54,58,59]. However, financing in these initiatives is mostly promoted through calls or tenders for projects with a high participation rate, and a very low approval rate stands out. Another disadvantage is that these instruments are not exclusively dedicated to the circular economy, so only a limited number of applications are directed at the implementation of a CE. It is considered that a more ambitious financing perspective should be promoted to support investment so that national companies can improve their circular performance through financing instruments that are more dedicated to the circular economy in the industry [84]. In addition, investment funds should also be promoted that allow companies to have access to funds to implement circularity in the form of credit [84].

Lastly, in the context of the successful implementation of a CE in the industry, incentives for information and data are essential [85,86], since the promotion of databases [87], matching and mimicking [88], flow-map platforms [89], potential scenarios, and marketplaces [90] facilitate the process of promoting and consolidating synergies. Although Portugal has a clear perspective for the financing of technological initiatives in the circular-economy promotion, namely through FITEC [57] and the INTERFACE program [55], there are currently no relevant operational instruments in this area. In this aspect, we consider that the national strategy should create a means for the development and promotion of mechanisms (methodologies [85], tools [89], marketplaces [90], among others) that allow the measuring of industrial-symbiosis benefits for businesses and promote spaces for sharing. Portugal must also continue to promote the financing of technological incentives that help reinforce the technological-investment areas, such as the purchase of utilities, know-how acquisition, and IT-skills improvement that will increase the competitiveness of Portuguese industries [10].

6.2. Simplifying the National Strategy

To achieve the transition of the industry to circularity, having a solid strategy is a fundamental aspect. Portugal seems to have a clear strategy regarding the circular economy in the industry. This strategy plans to consolidate the circular economy through actions (macro, meso, and micro) that are focused on supporting regions and sectors in order to boost the circular economy in the industry [4]. In a perspective more dedicated to the industry, Portugal also has clear guidelines for the implementation of a circular economy in the industry and its business models. This strategy has a set of policy instruments and strategy incentives that cover almost all the phases of the value chain, though there are some critical aspects where this strategy fails, and in this sense it should be reinforced. Some of these aspects are inconsistencies with other policies, a lack of quantifiable objectives, and a lack of monitoring processes.

One of the most concerning aspects of Portugal’s strategy is the absolute lack of concrete and progressive targets to achieve in the short and medium term; that is, the actions proposed in the national strategy do not have meters or subsequent monitoring processes. In this sense, Portugal must define a clear framework for the objectives it intends to achieve, for instance, alternative macroeconomic indicators of GDP [91]. The need to measure the circular economy has been so relevant that private companies and associations have proactively begun to take the first steps in this area. For instance, the Lipor together with the Environment Agency has developed a benchmarking test of indicators for the circular economy [92], and the CIP developed a study with the first draft of metrics applied to the Portuguese case [93]. In this sense, a promotion and definition of the framework of target and objective for the national perspective is urgently needed.

6.3. Dealing with Complexity and Bureaucracy

In the case of Portugal, but also in other countries in southern Europe, there is a tendency towards complex and bureaucratic administrative processes. Regarding the implementation of the circular economy, there are many processes and mechanisms that must be simplified to facilitate this process. To contextualize, a company cannot value a waste (internally) if it does not have a license. In this sense, if a company intends to carry out internal recovery, then it must be licensed. On the other hand, if this company intends to carry out external recovery, then any material that is classified as waste to be recovered must be declassified and recategorized as a by-product, for which the waste-declassification process must be initiated. In this sense, Portugal has two important processes that until now have been very complex and continue to hinder the implementation of a circular economy in the industry.

For instance, the waste-declassification process has been until now a complex, time-consuming, and costly process, since in order to satisfactorily declassified a material, four conditions must be cumulatively verified: the certainty of subsequent use (i); the substance or object must be used directly, without any processing other than normal industrial practice (ii); the production of the substance or object must be an integral part of a production process (iii); the substance must meet the relevant requirements as a product in environmental- and health-protection matters (iv) [94]. Of these four conditions, the truly relevant are conditions three and four. Regarding the remaining criteria, the authors consider that the approach of the Portuguese Environment Agency is exclusive, since it does not know the potential of indirect synergies, which have been identified as having the most potential [95,96,97]. This approach also ignores the market potential because it requires the certainty of subsequent use in the first instance.

Several authors have discussed the lack of time and high bureaucratic level in Portugal [38,98], specifically with the declassification process and the difficulties of obtaining special permits for synergies [98]. In general terms, Portugal must simplify and improve the waste-management processes, especially the declassification process, since said processes are the core of the operational implementation of synergies. This type of problem has also been observed in the licensing process for those companies that intend to develop internal industrial symbiosis, with expensive, complex, and long processes, which even last up to 5 years. In this sense, it is necessary to review the legislation that supports this process in order to promote a more adequate, flexible, and less onerous declassification, licensing, and permit processes. In fact, this has been a proposal that the CE has underlined to promote the transition.

Another relevant problem in this area is the loss of momentum due to the delay in the process and the lack of continuity of some incentives and policies. Most of the strategic plans in Portugal go through an initial phase of consultation, and then in intermediate phases they are submitted to revision and later a new public consultation. This process, in the most extreme cases, can last two years. The authors consider that it is necessary, first of all, to guarantee the continuity of the initiatives and try to simplify and accelerate these intermediate processes that can compromise the correct development of the plans and induce a loss of momentum.

7. Result Discussion

Regarding the first question, which refers to the current state of policies and instruments for a CE in industry and industrial symbiosis, an exhaustive characterization was performed and has allowed the establishment of a clear idea of the current status in Portugal. In general, Portugal seems to have a strategy regarding the circular economy as a general concept. From a perspective more dedicated to the industry, Portugal also has clear guidelines for the CE implementation in the industry and its business models. This strategy has a set of policy instruments (such as policies, plans, and roadmaps) and strategy incentives (for instance financial funds and taxes, among others), which cover almost all the phases of the value chain phases. The strategic incentives are mostly part of the lines of action of the policies and help the CE implementation in various aspects such as the provision of investment, combating social barriers, training, and dynamization. In a more detailed analysis, it must be highlighted that there is no balance within these strategic incentives and some of these are not well directed, which means that despite having a clear strategy, in the current Portuguese context there are gaps and needs for the implementation of EC&IS.

Regarding the second research question dedicated to the gaps or weak points in the Portuguese context, according to the results of our study, Portugal has a relevant number of gaps and needs that it must address to achieve a circular transition. Those gaps and needs are presented in various domains such as economic, fiscal, social, process, technical and strategic. Nevertheless, the largest group is the strategic group, and it refers mainly to various aspects such as the lack of clear targets to achieve a CE, a lack of objectives, and the absence of a framework or action plans exclusively dedicated to the implementation of a CE and its models in the industry. Other gaps and needs were also identified in the social, fiscal, process, and technical domains, such as a lack of a coordinated approach across IS, low development in fiscal policy or incentives, and waste-management barriers for secondary materials, respectively.

Lastly, regarding the third question associated with aspects in which Portugal must improve to achieve a large-scale promotion of industrial symbiosis, the results of our study suggest that Portugal must improve three aspects for transition: effective incentives, simplifying the national strategy, and dealing with bureaucracy.

It is important to highlight that the main insights into policies that were identified in this study are limited to the Portuguese case. Those three critical aspects were not only identified but were also defined as the possible instruments that would support overcoming and advancing those aspects, based on good international practices. For instance, for effective incentives, the insights focus on aspects such as the promotion of the ambitious perspective of green taxation, supporting the investment and financing in ICE&IS, instruments for increased awareness and networking, and investment and promotion of IT skills. Regarding the simplification of the national strategy, our insights into policies focused mainly on the definition of quantifiable and objective targets. Lastly, in dealing with bureaucracy, which has been recommended in order to simplify waste-declassification processes and accelerate the required licensing and permits to develop synergies.

Despite the relevant numbers of incentives in the current strategy, Portugal must promote well-targeted and effective incentives. In the current context, Portugal has slight representation in critical areas for the transition, such as technology and education. On the other hand, there are areas where Portugal should better direct the incentives, namely in the economic and fiscal areas.

Comparing the results of this study with previous works developed in this area in Portugal, some similarities were identified that can be highlighted. For instance, the work of Nieves et al. [32] has also suggested that the quantification and definition of a target are fundamental in the Portuguese context. Another similarity in results occurs with the work of Oliveira, which also suggested that a revision of the legislation is necessary, specifically in fundamental processes for the promotion of industrial symbiosis (waste-declassification process).

The authors consider that the perspective presented in this paper might serve as a source of information for the revision of Portugal´s circular-economy-implementation strategy, aiming to complement the strategy and support achieving the initially outlined objectives.

8. Conclusions

This paper has systematically reviewed and analyzed Portuguese policies within the scope of ICE&IS to identify the current status, main gaps and needs, and define a future perspective. This study developed and performed a methodology for policy identification, analysis, and definition of future perspectives. As a result, it is suggested that Portugal is on the track to a greater circularity of its economy, with several relevant strategic and political incentives that address almost the entire value chain of materials. Nevertheless, from an operational perspective, Portugal also has manufacturing and industry sectors with a wide scope for improvement in its performance under various aspects of circularity. Concerning gaps and needs, Portugal has a significant number that will need to be covered in order to achieve effective circularity. In general terms, most of the gaps identified in the scope of this study were strategic; however, there are also technical, fiscal, social, and process gaps. The final contribution of this study is the future perspective, which is based on the aspects that must be reinforced to achieve circularity. According to our analysis, there are three critical aspects to be improved: effective incentives, simplifying the national strategy, and dealing with bureaucracy. As the main recommendation for future studies, the authors recommend the validation of our proposal (future perspective) in a practical case with indicators that allow for recognizing the efficacy of the recommendations provided.